The wheels are coming off fellas. The fact that this is not front page on every paper is a testament to the mob that still believes that science supports global warming.

As a side note....the polar bear population has increased over the last 40 years.

Quote:

Climategate
Posted: November 23, 2009, 8:40 PM by NP Editor
climate change, University of East Anglia

What the climate scientists wrote and when they wrote it
On Friday, news broke that a hacker had broken in to the computer systems used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in Britain, obtaining more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 documents. The material, which covers a period of more than a decade, has led many to conclude that climate scientists associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and various government agencies have been cooking the books to make the case for man-made global warming. Climate researchers deny any wrongdoing, explaining that the e-mails are innocent and have been taken out of context. The University, while confirming the hacking, cannot confirm the authenticity of all the stolen documents. Here is a sampling of some of the exchanges.

From Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University, to Ray Bradley, Michael Mann, and Malcolm Hughes, three U.S. scientists who have produced the controversial “hockey-stick graphs” that purport to show rapidly increasing temperatures in recent decades. Nov, 16, 1999.

Quote:

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e. from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

From Kevin Trenberth, a lead author with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, to Michael Mann, on Oct 12. 2009. The email, titled “BBC U-turn on climate,” laments a BBC article that reversed its long-held position on man-made global warming.

Quote:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. ... Our observing system is inadequate.

”
From: Michael Mann, Oct 27, 2009

Quote:

“Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post... As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.”

From: Edward Cook, June 4, 2003

Quote:

“I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. ... If published as is, this paper could really do some damage … It won’t be easy to dismiss out of hand as the math appears to be correct theoretically (...) I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review — Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting.”

From: Tom Wigley, Sep 27, 2009

Quote:

“So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 C, then this would be significant for the global mean — but we’d still have to explain the land blip. I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these).”

From: Phil Jones, Feb 2, 2005

Quote:

“The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

From: Phil Jones, May 29, 2008

Quote:

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

From: Keith Briffa, Sep 22, 1999

Quote:

“I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. We don’t have a lot of proxies that come right up to date and those that do (at least a significant number of tree proxies ) some unexpected changes in response that do not match the recent warming.

”

From: Michael E. Mann, Mar 11, 2003

Quote:

“I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.”

From: Tom Wigley, Apr24, 2003

Quote:

“Mike’s idea to get editorial board members to resign will probably not work — must get rid of von Storch too, otherwise holes will eventually fill up with people like Legates, Balling, Lindzen, Michaels, Singer, etc.”

From: Phil Jones, July 5, 2005

Quote:

“If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.”

this is the problem with the way we approach serious global issues these days. everything needs a slant and a brand. i think it's pretty clear to everyone that dumping chemicals into the water and the air isn't good, but to try to wrap it up with a ribbon and a bow, call it climate change, and have a global movement based on something that is unprovable will end up setting you a lot farther back than making honest claims and pushing for change that is actually effective and important.

that we need scientists to tell us it's bad when we burn fossil fuels and plastics and throw our garbage into the air is as big a problem as the scientists fudging the numbers to prove a particular slant. everyone wants to make money, and in the scramble to do so reality is buried behind the propoganda.

marx was right in the first place. it's all just the fetishization of capital.

n the run-up to next month’s increasingly shaky Copenhagen global warming policy negotiations, the official advice from the world’s climatists is that the politicians and the rest of us should just pay no attention to the science of climate change. It is settled, they say, and all we have to do — as the Financial Times editorialized recently — is “follow the science” and get on with the business of reconstruction and redistributing world economic production. We must, in the words of Elizabeth Kolbert, The New Yorker’s resident climatist, maintain our “faith in science.”

Among true believers, holding on to that deep faith in the scientific process must be something of a strain, not unlike holding on to the conviction that Moses actually did part the Red Sea. That’s some trick! Before this past weekend, doubts about the foundations of climate science were already being seriously raised by climate observers who noted, among other anomalies, that average global temperatures are no higher than they were in 1998 and may get cooler in coming years? If the world is getting hotter, how come it’s not getting hotter?

Other observations are also feeding public skepticism of the idea that man-made global warming is a risk to planetary ecosystems and the future of human life on Earth. One could fill pages with evidence either of global warming’s manifest absence from our lives or its failure to show up on schedule or as expected. Where are the hurricanes, the sea level increases, the floods in Europe, the steady signs of warming? Fewer people believe the hype, one of the main reasons politicians heading to the Copenhagen are shying away from major commitments.

B to the enzo, so it ain't so, bro. Just so you know, if you deny (man made)Global Warming, that puts you in the same camp as Alex Jones and those 911 truthers you love so much.

This is a complicated issue. It requires a lot of effort to navigate through the clusterfuck of information, because it is being revised and updated so quickly. And that's actually what scientists should do. Science is about challening information and asking questions. Only the bad scientists hide from questions and challenges. There are many scientists who support the evidence for global warming who have not been hiding. Only some of them are douches. Science is about revising when new information is presented. The far right tires to exploit that, though, by saying "look how they changed that" or "they said this and now they say that."

Some scientists are scared by the fact that global warming is being attacked so well by the propaganda machine. Is anyone familiar with what happened under the Bush years? I mean, seriously. Scientific report after scientific report was edited by Bush's "Yes men" in government. That's what leads some of the global warming advocates to act like such douches and try to exagerate shit. I'm not making excuses for them, but rather stating a fact. I think it is shameful when scientists distort data. But the fact that some MAY have done so, does NOT negate the work of all the other scientists.

As Trane said, we shouldn't need scientists to have tell us what we're doing is bad, but the fact of the matter is, the average person wants to be a selfish mofo and do exactly what Fox News and others constantly tell them they have a right to do: drive a big car and consume as much as they want, since it's good for the economy.

We need balance in this world. Most people can't handle that type of thinking, though. They don't have the patience, nor the trust for others. It's easier to just believe what you want to hear, rather than listen to both sides and assess the information critically.

To dismiss global warming so easily is letting the bad guys win. To believe everything you hear about global warming is also letting the bad guys win. Real science does not require much faith. Real science is rarely flawed; humans are flawed. Humans misinterpret things, don't consider enough variables, or they simply employ poor methodology. But real science, when conducted properly, yields sound information. We see the proof of that everyday.

Both sides are engaged in a propaganda campaign, but that doesn't mean all of the information about global warming is false. The fact that the far right is trying so hard to lie in order to dismiss global warming demonstrates that they are scared shitless about the reality of global warming and the implications it has for big business. And yes, the far right and big business are lying like motherfuckers. I am going to be making other posts about this issue. Not that anyone necessarily cares. You just don't hear about their lies as much in Canada because we don't have Fox News. Canada's journalists have far more integrity, even if they, too, have flaws.

Ugh. This annoys me as much as the "vaccines will kill you or make you autistic" and "911 was an inside job" nonsense. It's all so anti-science. It's so funny listening to people who butcher science criticize other scientists for using bad science. Not all the scientists supporting global warming are conducing bad research. A few bad apples don't spoil the bunch. It's just like my comments about doctors in the H1N1 thread. There are always a few douche bags, but what do the overwhelming majority of moderates think? Remember, you can find doctors who say all kinds of bullshit, so of course you can find scientists who are incompetent. Unfortunately, the sad truth is that a percentage of professionals, in all fields, have credentials they absolutely don't deserve. You can say this about doctors, lawyers, scientists...etc....there's always a few douche bags.

I would be much more accepting of the argument "we should do this ...just because we should" or "we should reduce our reliance on oil because it puts us in a bad place politically" but don't tell me we should destroy economy and prop up china and India, because "the science" supports it.

b - why do you need an expert opinion to tell you to do what you already know is right?

I don't, I do what I can. However Kyoto would have been a destructive force, and is based on the findings of these people. I am for constructive solutions, not blanket revolution based on fudgy numbers that were never proven in the first place.

For the record, these are not "some scientists" emails...they are THE authority on climate change, they are "THE" scientists.

“The two MMs [Canadian skeptics Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

Really? Okay, so are you suggesting that there is no evidence supporting global warming in general? Or are you suggesting that there is no evidence supporting man made global warming? I'm trying to get a sense of what your exact stance is, so I don't unfairly assume anything about your views.

Also, where did you find this story? See, I look at those comments, and there is not enough information (context) for me to know for sure what they are talking about. Some of those statements could be interpreted in a number of ways. Where is the story from? Sorry if there is already a link and I just couldn't find it.

Really? Okay, so are you suggesting that there is no evidence supporting global warming in general? Or are you suggesting that there is no evidence supporting man made global warming? I'm trying to get a sense of what your exact stance is, so I don't unfairly assume anything about your views.

Also, where did you find this story? See, I look at those comments, and there is not enough information (context) for me to know for sure what they are talking about. Some of those statements could be interpreted in a number of ways. Where is the story from? Sorry if there is already a link and I just couldn't find it.

I quoted the National Post the link is in my second or third post....It is gaining steam though no "lefty" paper will cover it. I don't believe global warming exists and there is no scientific evidence to support it. I will agree to "climate change" and add there is very little evidence to support human effect.

That said, I think we should be more responsible to the earth, alternative energies, recycling etc... I am not for a complete overhaul of technoolgy or industry to do so, until we know what we are dealing with though.